ORANGE COUNTY POLL : Reflection of Public Frustration : Slow-Growth Measure Support Stays Strong

Orange County residents continue to overwhelmingly support a controversial slow-growth initiative despite well-organized opposition from developers and other efforts to keep the proposal off the June ballot, a poll conducted for the Orange County Edition of The Times has found.

In a clear reflection of the frustration with traffic congestion, smog and other issues associated with rapid growth, the poll shows that 73% of registered voters surveyed support the slow-growth proposal--an even greater margin of support than found in a similar poll conducted in September.

The survey also found that most people believe the Board of Supervisors represents the interests of developers rather than residents on the growth issue. Respondents said they see the countywide initiative as having a potentially positive effect on the quality of life and on the economy.

The Orange County Poll, conducted for The Times last week by Mark Baldassare & Associates, provides a detailed look at county attitudes toward slow growth at a time when backers of the proposed initiative are racing to meet a Tuesday deadline for signatures to qualify their measure for the June ballot.

“It is a landslide of support,” Baldassare said. “There is support for the initiative across the board--in every age, sex and income group.”

The poll found that support for the slow-growth measure crossed all demographic lines, bringing together the young and the old, Republicans and Democrats and people of all income groups.

The more people knew about the slow-growth movement, the more they tended to support it, the poll found. And while the initiative enjoyed greater support among those with higher incomes, it also appealed to a healthy cross-section of people regardless of their incomes.

The proposed ballot measure, known as the Citizens’ Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative, would condition growth in the county on the ability of local roads and public services to keep pace with a growing population.

While the number of initiative supporters has remained constant since the September poll, opposition to the measure has shrunk by 7 points, and the number of people who are uncertain about the issue has increased by 9 points, the new poll found.

The result is that the margin of support has increased dramatically, to 60%, because 73% favor of the measure while 13% who oppose it. In the September poll, 75% of the registered voters supported the initiative, and 20% opposed it, putting the margin of support at 55%.

Part of Annual Survey

The September poll was taken as part of UC Irvine’s Orange County Annual Survey.

Despite major media attention, the latest survey found that only about half of the county’s adults had heard of the proposals to limit growth and a little more than a third of those were very interested.

Nevertheless, Baldassare said, the level of support was reminiscent of the overwhelming statewide popularity of the 1978 Proposition 13 tax reform initiative. He said it would “take a monumental change in public opinion” for the measure to fail if it makes it onto the June ballot.

“The significant thing,” added Cheryl Katz, Baldassare’s associate, “is that there is not a big pocket of support against it. The only negative appears to be some concern over the affect on jobs and the economy.”

In that area, 46% of the respondents believe that the measure would have a positive effect on jobs and the economy, down from 68% in the September poll. But this change did not translate into more people believing that it would have a bad affect. Rather, it led to more people being uncertain of its impact.

600 Adults Questioned

In the poll, conducted Jan. 31 to Tuesday, 600 Orange County adults were questioned using a random sample of listed and unlisted telephone numbers. An equal number of men and women were interviewed.

The poll had a margin of error of 4% either way, meaning that it is 95% certain that the results are within 4 percentage points of what they would be if every adult resident of the county were interviewed.

Of those polled, 505 were registered voters, giving that subgroup a margin of error of 4 1/2%.

To qualify their initiative for the June ballot, slow-growth supporters must turn in by Tuesday’s deadline 66,000 valid signatures. Just two weeks ago, organizers warned that the petition drive was falling short and that they needed a last-minute push to collect additional signatures before Tuesday. Organizers said they wanted at least a 20% cushion in the number of signatures because initiative drives typically produce large numbers of signatures that are disqualified.

Only registered voters may sign the petitions.

The poll indicated that if the initiative drive fails, it would not be for lack of willing signers. Of the registered voters polled, 75% said they would sign the petition if given a chance.

‘Supporting the Initiative’

“There really isn’t any excuse for it not to get on the ballot except for poor organization,” Baldassare said. “People are supporting this initiative.”

Janet Breslin, a retiree who lives in San Juan Capistrano and one of those surveyed, reflected the feelings of many respondents in explaining why she was a strong slow-growth supporter.

“I lived in Los Angeles and I came to Orange County 15 years ago to get away from traffic congestion, smog and all those things,” she said in an interview Friday. “Now, 15 years later I live in gridlock.”

To visit her family in Los Angeles, Breslin said she is on the road by 4:30 a.m. and plans on returning the following day.

“I moved to another area to get away from all that,” she said. “I didn’t expect to live a rural existence, but I expected a comfortable existence. Now everything has become a hassle. It’s unbelievable.”

On a question about the Board of Supervisors, the poll showed that 58% feel the elected five-member body represents the interests of developers. Only 16% believe the board represents the average citizen.

Opinion of Bias

“There is no question that people think the Board of Supervisors is biased toward developers,” Baldassare said. “The $64,000 question seems to be: Who do the supervisors represent?”

Because of the perception of bias, Baldassare said he thinks that it would be difficult for a supervisor-supported compromise initiative to succeed. Two such proposals have been offered by board members in recent days.

“A compromise initiative would not carry the weight of a citizen’s initiative,” he said, “because of the fact that the supervisors are viewed as representing developers instead of the citizens.

“It is obvious that the board will have limited credibility on these issues,” he continued. “It means the supervisors will have a difficult time convincing people that any compromise they may offer really helps the average citizen.”

It is that perception of the lack of credibility that explains why Carol Lynn Johnston, an administrative assistant in Anaheim, is so wary of the supervisors.

“It’s money,” said Johnston, who was also polled. “They see the developers bringing in more money for the county, which of course they want. They may say they are concerned about traffic, but all they see is the dollar signs.”

Concerned About Traffic

Johnston, who has been willing to sign the slow-growth petition but has yet to see one, was so concerned about traffic that she recently changed jobs to be closer to her home.

“I just got tired of the traffic,” she said. “I now work three blocks from my house. It is that important to me.”

Despite the level of distrust of the supervisors, 47% of those polled support some sort of compromise between the county, developers and slow-growth supporters. Twenty-five percent thought it was a bad idea, and 28% were uncertain.

And in spite of last month’s outcry over efforts to sidestep the initiative process by negotiating a compromise, Baldassare found that “most residents do favor a settlement. In fact, supporters are even more likely than opponents to want to compromise. Of those who would vote yes on the slow-growth measure, 50% say a compromise is a good idea while 27% view it as a bad idea.”

Baldassare said that because support for the measure had not declined over the past few months, disclosure of compromise negotiations had not eroded support for the initiative.

Questions over the possible effect on jobs and the economy appeared to be the only negative element in the otherwise positive responses the survey provided the slow-growth forces.

“When you begin to have this level of social support for an issue, it’s pretty hard to speak against it,” Baldassare said.”And I think now even the leadership is becoming reluctant to speak out against it.”

SLOW-GROWTH INITIATIVE SURVEY RESULTS PUBLIC AWARENESS

Heard of Initiative Level of Interest Category %Yes %No %Very %Some %Little All adults 50 50 38 42 20 Voters only 54 46 40 40 20 Men 54 46 32 44 24 Women 47 53 45 39 16 By age 18-34 32 68 31 42 27 35-54 65 35 42 44 14 $20,000-39,000 37 63 30 50 20 $40,000-60,000 58 42 28 52 20 Over $60,000 68 32 49 33 18

VOTER SUPPORT

Category *9/87 2/88 Change Yes 75% 73% -2 points No 20% 13% -7 points Don’t know 5 % 14% +9 points Yes/No gap 55% 60% +5 points

* September, 1987, Orange County Annual Survey

Category %Yes %No %DK* %Yes %No %DK* All adults 72 13 15 73 16 11 Voters only 73 13 14 75 14 11 Men 71 17 12 70 20 10 Women 74 9 17 76 12 12 By age 18-34 76 13 11 75 14 11 35-54 72 13 15 75 15 10 55 or more 67 14 19 65 21 14 By annual income Under $20,000 71 7 21 75 12 13 $20,000-39,000 76 12 12 78 13 9 $40,000-60,000 74 14 12 73 17 10 Over $60,000 70 17 13 69 19 12

* Don’t Know EFFECTS ON JOBS AND ECONOMY

Category *9/87 2/88 Change Good 68% 46% -22 points Bad 14% 16% +2 points No effect 13% 11% -2 points Don’t know 5 % 27% +22 points

* September, 1987, Orange County Annual Survey. The OCAS asked about jobs only.

Jobs and Economy Quality of Life % % % % % % % % Category Good Bad None *DK Good Bad None *DK All adults 45 17 10 28 68 9 6 17 Voters only 46 16 11 27 69 8 7 16 Men 41 23 10 26 64 10 9 17 Women 49 11 10 30 72 7 4 16 By age 18-34 51 18 8 23 72 9 5 14 35-54 39 18 13 30 72 7 6 15 55 or more 40 15 9 36 55 11 10 24 By annual income Under $20,000 59 9 5 27 66 13 7 14 $20,000-39,000 48 16 10 26 72 7 4 17 $40,000-60,000 44 18 11 27 68 8 7 16 Over $60,000 41 24 12 24 68 9 7 16

* Don’t Know Source: Times/Orange County Poll by Mark Baldassare and Associates. The survey polled a random sample of 600 adults between Jan. 31 and Feb. 2. Margin of error 4 %. Percentages may not add up to 100 % because of rounding. ORANGE COUNTY POLL HIGHLIGHTS AWARENESS Heard of initiative? A majority of older people are aware of slow-growth proposals, while two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds appear unaware. Awareness rises with income--those earning more than $60,000 a year are three times as likely as those earning less than $20,000 to be aware of proposals. Only half of those polled indicated an awareness of slow-growth proposals. SUPPORT 0% change from September, 1987 Although support for a slow-growth initiative has remained virtually constant since September, 1987, the gap between support and opposition actually widened as opposition declined 7 percentage points in that time. BOON or BUST? Jobs Those believing a slow-growth initiative would benefit the county job market and economy declined sharply from September, 1987. This did not translate into opposition to the initiative. However, more people were uncertain what effect it would have. Good: -22% Bad: 2% No effect: -2% Don’t know: 22% The effects Those more knowledgeable about slow-growth initiatives were less optimistic about their benefits. Heard of initiatives: 39% Good effect, 20% Bad effect Had not heard of initiatives: 52% Good effect, 13.7% Bad effect The sexes Of those who thought a slow-growth initiative would be bad for the county, men outnumbered women 2 to 1. Women: 23% Men: 11% Income As income rises, belief in positive effects declines. (In thousands) Under $20: 59% 20 to $39: 48% 40 to $60: 44% Over $60: 41%